- Quickdraw McLaw
- 48 Comments
- 204 Views
Clark Co DA candidate Robert Langford says if elected, he’d end cash bail system on day 2, if not day 1. “Bail ends up being a hidden fine on poor people … Studies … tell us bail is a poor indicator of whether someone will return to court.” (DA incumbent Wolfson not present)— Michelle Rindels (@MichelleRindels) May 22, 2018
We haven’t found an article yet regarding it, but there was a panel on mass incarceration last night featuring DA candidate Robert Langford, PD Phil Kohn, Assemblyman Jason Frierson, and Boyd law professor Michael G. Kagan. As you can see from the above tweet from The Nevada Independent’s Michelle Rindels, Candidate Langford would like to do away with cash bail systems. What do you think? Good idea or bad idea?
Good idea. I have personally seen folks with thousands, and I mean thousands, of dollars in traffic fines and assessments getting mowed down paying cash bail and warrant fees. In the City, for every bond, you pay an additional $50 to $75 PER CASE bond fee. The fines never get paid and people go in and out of jail on a revolving door basis further destabilizing their lives (job loss, kids on street, no money for food or rent). There needs to a be reasonable way for folks to deal with their fines without all the other BS.
Cash bail is nothing more than a get rich scheme for bail bondsmen. People lose all of their savings, houses, and income just to get out of jail when they are most likely not a risk of danger or failure to appear. This money could be used for hiring counsel, leaving the truly indigent to the public defender offices. The government also carries a huge burden because the jails are filled with people who cannot afford bail, but who are not a flight risk. Pretrial incarceration in jail should be reserved for the truly dangerous. People should not be punished by holding them because they cannot afford pretrial release.
So hoping he wins. It would be amazing to have a DA that's actually considering what works and what doesn't in the criminal justice system.
The study commissioned by the criminal justice advisory commission found that bail has no relevance to likelihood of appearance. Even with a pilot program using an evidence-based tool, the JPs are still using a bail schedule.
There has to be a consequence for repeatedly breaking the law. Being judgment proof in a civil court is one thing, but we can't have a class of people running around being "law proof" for goodness sakes, meaning they can keep breaking the law with impunity because they can't afford the fines. There has to be a deterrence. If you have a better idea than jail, offer it up, but don't just say, "these people are poor and can't pay fines so let them keep breaking the law but don't put them in jail because it's mean."
Of course there has to be consequences, but holding someone pre-trial based on an ability to pay is ridiculous and the consequences are severe. I argue this all the time — what's $500 to me or the State or the judge? But for my client, it's twice his monthly spending money (not counting bills). Cut the guy loose and hook him up with an ankle monitor.
How do you expect these individuals to ever pay their fines if you lock them up? And does the value of the fine they may be unable to pay exceed the cost to the taxpayers for housing them in jail? Does that really benefit the community (in the case of non-violent offenders)?
Ankle monitors is your solution? They charge the defendant, I believe, $400/month. If you can't afford bail, you certainly can't afford the ankle monitors.
8:36's statement is based on a profound misunderstanding of the criminal justice system – bail is not a fine, and pretrial confinement is not intended to be a punishment. In cases where bail is offered, bail is an incentive to appear, and pretrial confinement is intended to ensure appearance in the absence of that incentive. The problem is it results in a de facto system where only the poor and those charged with the most serious crimes are subject to pretrial confinement, while those with some means are not.
@10:01 — Which should be a due process issue. People who can afford it get an alternative to jail while people who can't just sit and rot. Yes, ankle monitors are my solution, and they should be free or provided on a sliding scale.
This just in: life gets hard when you're poor and in the system. Poor people get screwed when they have to miss work to handle court dates, while middle class are more likely to have jobs that provide them leniency. Should we compensate the defendants in some way for that?
Ultimate solution: stop being poor.
"Ultimate solution: stop being poor."
So Simple!
The files are IN the computer
Follow the federal system where bail is only one tool to ensure return appearance, i.e. 1. Sign an secured promise to pay if you don't show up and then use the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that such judicial officer determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, which may include the condition that the person—
(i) remain in the custody of a designated person, who agrees to assume supervision and to report any violation of a release condition to the court, if the designated person is able reasonably to assure the judicial officer that the person will appear as required and will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community;
(ii) maintain employment, or, if unemployed, actively seek employment;
(iii) maintain or commence an educational program;
(iv) abide by specified restrictions on personal associations, place of abode, or travel;
(v) avoid all contact with an alleged victim of the crime and with a potential witness who may testify concerning the offense;
(vi) report on a regular basis to a designated law enforcement agency, pretrial services agency, or other agency;
(vii) comply with a specified curfew;
(viii) refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon;
(ix) refrain from excessive use of alcohol, or any use of a narcotic drug or other controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802), without a prescription by a licensed medical practitioner;
(x) undergo available medical, psychological, or psychiatric treatment, including treatment for drug or alcohol dependency, and remain in a specified institution if required for that purpose;
(xi) execute an agreement to forfeit upon failing to appear as required, property of a sufficient unencumbered value, including money, as is reasonably necessary to assure the appearance of the person as required, and shall provide the court with proof of ownership and the value of the property along with information regarding existing encumbrances as the judicial office may require;
(xii) execute a bail bond with solvent sureties; who will execute an agreement to forfeit in such amount as is reasonably necessary to assure appearance of the person as required and shall provide the court with information regarding the value of the assets and liabilities of the surety if other than an approved surety and the nature and extent of encumbrances against the surety’s property; such surety shall have a net worth which shall have sufficient unencumbered value to pay the amount of the bail bond;
(xiii) return to custody for specified hours following release for employment, schooling, or other limited purposes; and
(xiv) satisfy any other condition that is reasonably necessary to assure the appearance of the person as required and to assure the safety of any other person and the community.
@2:36; I can't argue with you that could be part of the ultimate solution, but it only part of it. I should read: stop being poor OR engaging in acts/activities likely to result in an arrest.
Agreed 8:36
If bail is too high, so what. Metro doesn't arrest innocent citizens. If the accused didn't commit this crime, he / she certainly committed another and the world is a safer place with cash bail.
Get off my lawn you damn hippies!
Did you forget the sarcasm tag?
8:36 that's not the whole story, and not what the study and Langford were referring to. Fines are one thing. But when you're charged with a crime and in jail, whether you can make bail or not to get out is unfair to the poor. Remember, those in custody are still presumed innocent. Requiring them to pay bail is more like requiring them to prove their innocence. As for fines, if they've been imposed that means a conviction has taken place and that's a different story.
Get the hell out of here with your nuanced understanding of the topic. Lock her up! Lock her up!
Civil, non-political dude here. For those in the know, do the bail bondsmen carry much political sway? Do they donate to DA candidates or otherwise get involved int he race? Based upon my limited knowledge and observation, it seems that Robert Langford has taken a position which is an existential threat to bail bondsmen. It seems natural that there would be some kind of resistance from them.
Get rid of the bail system except for actual flight risk cases in serious criminal cases.
Let the victims decide bail!
The reason this is a DA issue is that the DA uses high bail and overcharging (with the help of most JPs to force pleas.
In other news, the California Bar passage rate sank to a new low of 27.3 percent, dropping below the previous low of 27.7 percent in 1951. It's the first time the passage rate dropped below 30 percent since 1986.
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/05/california-posts-worst-bar-exam-results-the-state-has-seen-in-almost-70-years/
A couple of interesting things to note. First, the figure counts only those who completed the exam. So it likely under-reports the true failure rate because those who give up before finishing the exam are not counted. Second, this is the second exam administration into a shorter exam, cut to two days down from three.
Staci Zaretsky's bar passage rate articles are one of the best things on the internet.
This was not difficult to predict. Law school applications: way way down. Law school admissions: only slightly down. It's not rocket science. Law schools are admitting a progressively higher percentage of unqualified applicants. These admittees, who probably shouldn't have gone to law school in the first place, are failing the bar. Why do people act so surprised?
3:24 — Sad, but true.
Completely eliminating bail is a bad idea. The bail system currently allows at least 2 distinct options for a defendant… cash or bond. Cash is deposited with the clerk's office, bond is an instrument issued by a surety company (an insurance policy) backed by assets that the defendant pledges as collateral.
The cash bail option does not cost the defendant (except transaction costs, e.g. certified funds fee, lost investment income, etc.) so long as they comply with the terms of their release. Upon successful completion of the case, assuming the defendant does not violate the terms of release, it is released back to the defendant, though in many cases, the fines are deducted from the refund amount.
Bond, on the other hand, being an insurance policy always has a cost to the defendant even when there is perfect compliance with the terms of release. Not only do they have to post adequate collateral for the bonding company to accept the risk of loss, they bail bond agent is entitled to receive a commission for the sale of the policy. Unlike most other forms of insurance, that commission is paid directly by the purchaser rather than built into the price of the policy and paid by the carrier to the agent pursuant to the terms of their agency agreement.
The obvious problems with the cash bail system are 1) the defendant must prove that the cash is not the proceeds of criminal activity (sometimes difficult to accomplish when charged with criminal activity); 2) most individuals are not sitting on large piles of easily accessible cash; 3) if the funds are in bank/brokerage accounts, the defendant frequently must appear personally at the financial institution to withdraw the funds (hard to accomplish if incarcerated); and 4) withdrawing the funds, especially from a brokerage account or 401(k) account is cumbersome and time consuming.
I do not believe the purpose of bail (public safety and preventing flight) are served by the wholesale elimination of bail requirements. The elimination of bail schedules would be a better focus so that the bail amount is considered and personalized to each individual arrest rather than a routine rubber stamp amount based upon the charges rather than the individual and the facts.
"I do not believe the purpose of bail (public safety and preventing flight) are served by the wholesale elimination of bail requirements. The elimination of bail schedules would be a better focus so that the bail amount is considered and personalized to each individual arrest rather than a routine rubber stamp amount based upon the charges rather than the individual and the facts."
But the reason that bail schedules exist in the first place is because judges don't want to consider people on an individualized basis, right? Especially justice court judges, where they walk in every morning and there's like 60 new cases on their desk to churn through. There's already not enough time, and doing individualized inquiries for each of those people is just going to gum up the system even more. So that doesn't seem like a viable option.
1:41's argument might have some value if most of the Justice Court judges could still be found in the courthouse after noon. They may have some big caseloads, and a few may work hard, but on the whole they have a pretty easy life. They can spend a few more hours a day looking at risk assessments and making an educated determination about release.
If bail has been proven to have nothing to do with appearance rates, why have it? Bank and brokerage accounts? Please. That's not who is being forced to find money to get released. Federal courts almost never require bail.
Also remember, if the only money the defendant has isn't lost to the bondsman, maybe the defendant can afford to retain counsel.
@3:50; the flaw in that logic is that the only real difference is to whom the money is lost, bondsman or counsel. From the perspective of the defendant it is somewhat a difference without distinction. In either case, the money is lost as far as the defendant is concerned.
That being said, I do see a problem of individuals with financial means attempting to game the system to use the public defenders office for representation at no cost. Nevada should adopt a system like used in other jurisdictions wherein the public defender provides the representation and then at the conclusion of the case, a separate office (usually something like revenue and recovery) assesses the defendant's ability to reimburse some or all of the cost of the representation which was provided based upon the defendant's financial ability. A judge reviews the findings and enters a reimbursement order in the case at the conclusion of the case.
Under this type of system, all defendants are able to have representation (retained or appointed) at all stages of the case and the interests of the taxpayers are protected by preventing freeloading by those with the desire and means to be represented by counsel but simply don't pay for it.
Refreshing to have a candidate for DA actually talk about needed reforms
Would be better to hear such tripe from viable candidates.
Langford has the endorsements from SEIU and the Culinary unions. That makes him a viable candidate in a Democratic Primary, which is where the race will be decided. Throw in the fact that Wolfson's not loved by many of his own employees and has done little during his tenure, other than a lame tv show that was seen by only a few hundred people, and it's easy to see how Wolfson could lose.
Tangential but related to this conversation is the crushing of the poor with egregiously regressive taxes that result all too often in fines and ultimately warrants, because they can't afford the taxes. Automobile registration fees (taxes) are a prime example. How many of us have seen this movie? Working poor needs wheels for a job because this geographically horizontal environment does not provide a viable public transit alternative, but they can't afford the registration. So they get cited and fined, which they also can't afford, and then they get a warrant with more fines they can't afford and maybe, just for good measure, lose their job and have their car impounded (more fines and fees) while they sit in jail.
Wow I actually agree with you.
Just saw a Wolfson ad on tv. Part of the ad was filmed in a courtroom. Using judicial resources for his campaign…hmm.
Looked like a fake courtroom to me
Those ads are filmed usually in mock courtroom at a mediation place which have courtroom facilities. Also, the Eglet building has one and so does Gene Porter's shop (where Jackie Glass Wolfson's wife is/was affiliated). They should be required to disclose this is a simulation and not an actual court proceeding.
I recall an issue coming up many years ago where an attorney ad showed a lawyer "arguing in front of a jury" when in fact he had never tried a case. That became an issue. Otherwise I don't think anyone cares if the courtroom backdrop is real or someone's mock-up.
They should be required to disclose this is a simulation? GTFO. It's shit like this that gives lawyers a bad name. That and the whole stealing clients' money thing.
I wouldn't limit it to just that…. sleazy ads, overcharging for and under delivering services; fraudulent billing practices; incompetence; etc.
Cadish does the same thing, using resources for campaign.
Saw the same ad. Was definitely at the RJC, unless there is a doppelganger courtroom. I have seen Eglet's and Porter's and this was not it.
Anyone can use the courtroom for tv. Just have to get with court services and schedule.
That's my understanding too. A lot of people have done ads in courtrooms over the years I think.